Yes, I agree. Although I was never on the E-Sangha staff, I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk", notions like post-mortem rebirth and permanent nirvana and the like.

Truth be told, there is a variety of views among modern Zen teachers and my attitude is that a Zen forum can be inclusive of those of traditional bend as well as those who are more on the revisionist side of things, as long as everyone behaves. There are issues at times when it comes to accusations of intellectual dishonesty or misrepresenting the sutras/teachings, but fundamentally Zen is about practice and disagreements regarding the dogma should not loom so large, in my view (as much as the dogma can inform practice as well).

Anyway, this is what we attempt to do at the new forum. Let me invite you to check it out sometime.

_/|\_
Dan

Yes I remember what happened well

Namdrol and co. were pretty unfair to us at that time imo, especially and including when he didn't understand why and how we related to each other.

Of course the flipside is that there is such a thing as misrepresenting the teachings/teaching degenerate Dharma - so it's always a question of balance and persona, imo. At the time, we did have many good authentic practitioners posting imho - and yet he/they still saw it as an issue because they didn't speak his/their language (words). Such dogmatism.

I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk",

You don't recall the context. So let me recall it for you. In a diverse forum with many different traditions, people were becoming quite confused as to what constituted a "monk." Many people were showing up on the forum claiming ordination and teacher appointments in this and that school and we felt an obligation to force them to verify their ordinations/lama/teacher status to prevent misrepresentation and fraud.

There was a great deal of public discussion of whether wine-drinking, non-celibate westerners who had received shukke tokudo were equivalent to bhikṣus or not. This naturally caused some wine-drinking, non-celibate Zen priests frequenting the forum to become upset. But these are the kind of issues that must be addressed. However, there was no "censure" of Zen monks, merely a very heated discussion of what "monk" ought to mean. Ultimately, of course, one disgruntled member threatened to sue us and put up a ridiculous anti-Esanga Website.

I still maintain that if one is a wine-drinking non-celibate, one ought not refer to oneself as a monk.

In other words, we had Huifeng, Khedrup, and Dhammanando on the one hand, all ordained as either śrāmaneras or bhikṣus/bhikkus who did not like the work monk being used for Soto priests, etc., and the other, we had Jundo, Nonin, and so on, noncelibates with day jobs who still wanted to be called "monks," as absurd as that sounds to me even now.

Someone at the SZBA must have been listening, since in this document they studiously avoid referring to people with shukke tokudo or shiho as monks, referring to them solely as priests.

You have no idea how difficult it is when you have a forum of 50k+ registered users. DW does not compare in either volume or complexity.

Malcolm, I don't hold any grudges and it is clear that people have different recollections of the events. At one stage a former ESangha admin shared with me his impression of how Zen folks were being mistreated, while another asserted that no such thing ever took place.

Yes, I agree. Although I was never on the E-Sangha staff, I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk", notions like post-mortem rebirth and permanent nirvana and the like.

Truth be told, there is a variety of views among modern Zen teachers and my attitude is that a Zen forum can be inclusive of those of traditional bend as well as those who are more on the revisionist side of things, as long as everyone behaves. There are issues at times when it comes to accusations of intellectual dishonesty or misrepresenting the sutras/teachings, but fundamentally Zen is about practice and disagreements regarding the dogma should not loom so large, in my view (as much as the dogma can inform practice as well).

Anyway, this is what we attempt to do at the new forum. Let me invite you to check it out sometime.

_/|\_
Dan

Yes I remember what happened well

Namdrol and co. were pretty unfair to us at that time imo, especially and including when he didn't understand why and how we related to each other.

Of course the flipside is that there is such a thing as misrepresenting the teachings/teaching degenerate Dharma - so it's always a question of balance and persona, imo. At the time, we did have many good authentic practitioners posting imho - and yet he/they still saw it as an issue because they didn't speak his/their language (words). Such dogmatism.

hmm, why are we bring it up at all? I started with zfi from day 2, I had no idea of the history, e-shangha, etc. a bit of a sense reading this thread that informs my early impressions. no matter, it has nothing to do with how we go forward. here or there.

I do have more appreciation for managing a forum with volume and complexity that Malcom describes.

The best we can do is go fresh into a new response. So far, imo, this is not the case at our new zen sangha.

Yes, I agree. Although I was never on the E-Sangha staff, I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk", notions like post-mortem rebirth and permanent nirvana and the like.

Truth be told, there is a variety of views among modern Zen teachers and my attitude is that a Zen forum can be inclusive of those of traditional bend as well as those who are more on the revisionist side of things, as long as everyone behaves. There are issues at times when it comes to accusations of intellectual dishonesty or misrepresenting the sutras/teachings, but fundamentally Zen is about practice and disagreements regarding the dogma should not loom so large, in my view (as much as the dogma can inform practice as well).

Anyway, this is what we attempt to do at the new forum. Let me invite you to check it out sometime.

_/|\_
Dan

Yes I remember what happened well

Namdrol and co. were pretty unfair to us at that time imo, especially and including when he didn't understand why and how we related to each other.

Of course the flipside is that there is such a thing as misrepresenting the teachings/teaching degenerate Dharma - so it's always a question of balance and persona, imo. At the time, we did have many good authentic practitioners posting imho - and yet he/they still saw it as an issue because they didn't speak his/their language (words). Such dogmatism.

My nik was Floating Abu.

Take care Dan74. Well wishes to you all!

FA

Wow, another blast from the past!
I hope you're doing spectacularly well Abu, maybe we'll see you on zenspace.

The best we can do is go fresh into a new response. So far, imo, this is not the case at our new zen sangha.
linda

Easier said then done (depending on the individual) most if us are still conditioned by the past, some a bit more the others. Especially if we're attached by how we locked up someone (avatar-name) in a mental picture we will see that person in the light of our preconceived notions today, eventhough the behaviour might be transformed no matter what is said we see it in the light of the past and will continue our habitual behaviour to an individual or whole group/tradition/sangha and being swayed by the 8 winds. Thus you'll see the same patterns in new places. Luckily you're not looking for perfection but there's always room for improvement.

In daily life I try to be mindful of this and try to see friends and family as if you meet them for the first time instead of the picture we locked them and ourselfs up in. On online forums try to find a post which only adresses the content of the post instead of the fictional personality we think to be the avatar-name we respond to. Its more rule then exception. We already expect ppl to be and thus act a certain way and we judge ppl from those preconceived attachments.

hmm, why are we bring it up at all? I started with zfi from day 2, I had no idea of the history, e-shangha, etc. a bit of a sense reading this thread that informs my early impressions. no matter, it has nothing to do with how we go forward. here or there.

I do have more appreciation for managing a forum with volume and complexity that Malcom describes.

The best we can do is go fresh into a new response. So far, imo, this is not the case at our new zen sangha.

linda

THIS.
I have done my fair share of grudge carrying and resentment in my time. It is quite clearly adharmic and nothing justifies it. ( and I have already broken my resolution).